RAJINDER BINDRA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions are being disposed of by a common judgement since the petitioner is common in both the cases. Even though the reliefs sought in both the cases are different, to avoid repetition of facts both the petitions are being disposed of together. The petitioner is employed in the Agriculture Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh. From the documents filed on record it is apparent that the petitioner has been litigating with the department right from 1990 and has filed a large number of petitions. Every employee is entitled to approach the appropriate Court/forum when he feels that justice has not been done with him. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner has approached the Court in a number of cases may by itself not be sufficient to throw him out and would not be ground to reject his petition. However, at the same time, if this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has been coming to the Court repeatedly on the same cause of action then the Court may be inclined not to grant relief to the petitioner.

(2.) IT is not necessary to give the history of all the cases but it would be pertinent to mention that when the petitioner was working as daily waged worker his services were terminated on 30.06.1990 and thereafter the petitioner filed an original application before the then H.P. State Administrative Tribunal which was finally allowed on the ground that since due to interim order dated 1.8.1990 the petitioner had been working as daily paid casual labourer he was entitled to regularization in a phased manner on the basis of seniority. The petitioner then filed a contempt petition in which it was ordered that he be engaged as daily rated labourer. Thereafter in 1997 the petitioner filed another petition that he was discharging the duties of Assistant Photographer and Photographer but had not been paid wages for this purpose. He claimed salaries of these posts on the basis of equal pay for equal work. This petition was also allowed in his favour on 6.9.2010. Thereafter the petitioner filed O.A No. 470 of 1998 claiming regularization w.e.f. 31.12.1997 on the ground that other employee similarly situated to him had been given benefit of same medical certificates. A direction was issued to the department to consider the medical certificates given by the petitioner. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 3184 of 2001 before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in which he prayed for the grant of the following reliefs: -

(3.) THIS petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, who held as follows: -